or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Adobe cuts Photoshop CC to $10 a month for Creative Suite users, throws in Lightroom for free
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adobe cuts Photoshop CC to $10 a month for Creative Suite users, throws in Lightroom for free - Page 2

post #41 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post

All these "if you're not making enough to pay for it, you're not a professional/you're not charging enough" are the antipathetic republicans of Adobe's customers. You don't have any say in what makes a person's expenses, sales, or work legitimate.

You know there is always Photoshop Elements as a low cost alternative. It does 90% of what most solo entrepreneurs and consumers need from a photo editing application.

 

Adobe has positioned the CC Suite as a collection professional applications and the monthly subscription model does provide an opportunity for the up and coming young digital artist to enter the market and be competitive with the more well financed agencies. If someone is trying to start a business they need the the best tools available which often requires financing, so this is Adobe's financing model just like Apple will finance an iMac for young people entering the creative design industry. The subscription model with cloud services also offers advantages for professionals who don't need financing.

 

People complain that if they stop paying they won't have access to their files. Adobe CC is for professionals who are in it for the long haul. Professional are not planning to quit business any time soon so it is a non-issue.


Edited by mstone - 9/5/13 at 7:01am

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #42 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post

Yeah, still a big fat NO, Adobe. I'm living on disability income at the moment. There's no way I'm starting up a photography/art selling business with monthly expenses to rent the effing software tools.

How would you save up the money for one of the CS bundles under the old model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria 
As for Adobe being "forced to charge more to maintain their huge corporation", that's a self-inflicted injury.

They aren't charging more for everyone. If you bought the full ~$2000 CS4 Suite and skipped CS5, you'd have to pay ~$2000 to get CS6. That's $4000 in 3 years. Now it's $1800, you get two licenses with CC, you would have had a fully updated version in year 2 and you get online storage and online services.

For someone that bought say the Design Premium CS4 Suite at ~$1300 and wanted to upgrade to the CS6 equivalent, that's $2600 in 3 years vs $1800 for CC and again, CC has all the updates and online services.

For someone that buys Design Premium CS4 and holds onto it for 4 years+ without upgrading, that's when CC becomes a bad deal. But Adobe doesn't want people holding onto software for over 4 years without upgrading just like Apple puts 3 year maximum warranties on their products.

As far as access to files if you stop paying, that's bad if the intention is to use the software for non-profit activities and a lot of money has been paid out on subscriptions. One thing they could do at least is have a default limited mode outside of a valid license that gives you maybe 15-30 minutes use per day to allow you to open and adjust/convert/export files or some other limit like one app open at a time and one file at a time and that would work as their trial software too.
post #43 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

As far as access to files if you stop paying, that's bad if the intention is to use the software for non-profit activities and a lot of money has been paid out on subscriptions. One thing they could do at least is have a default limited mode outside of a valid license that gives you maybe 15-30 minutes use per day to allow you to open and adjust/convert/export files or some other limit like one app open at a time and one file at a time and that would work as their trial software too.

That's a nice idea.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #44 of 68

Behance ProSite is so crummy. Adobe should buy Squarespace.

post #45 of 68
I will stick with cs6 for as long as I can. I usually skip a version, so it will be years before I start feeling the pain. Hopefully by then someone will have compiled a comparable suite of tools. I find the most compelling feature of adobe software is the ability to work seamlessly across all its apps. Until someone duplicates that, I expect they will push CC down our throats. I don't think they are listening to us.
post #46 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001 View Post


Your comment actually highlights my problems with Aperture. Lightroom is intuitive that you can open it and go. No need for all the courses, tours and seminars to learn it.

 

Depends on where you started.  I tried Lightroom and found the interface confusing and less logical than Aperture.

 

But, I admit, my general hatred for Adobe had me going in with a large bias to start with.

 

Mark

post #47 of 68

There is a tremendous amount of passion in the responses to this story. 

 

Many of us forget that large companies like Disney rely on Adobe products and it is their voices that will be "heard" as well in this matter. Most of Disney has, I believe, not upgraded to the monthly model because their files MUST, by their nature, be housed, managed and available to the entire Company world wide. 

The current Adobe subscription system is not really compatible with a large cost-centered corporate model. It ties the company to the software and makes compatibility an issue going forward. Disney, I imagine, would not like any other company in control of their image products...no matter how slight.

 

For smaller ad firms and agencies the cloud might work OK but not for a large corporate model.

 

Adobe won't go away and neither will Photoshop. Adobe is trying an approach many have contemplated but not thought possible. Microsoft Word comes to mind. The software is becoming bloated and updates are faster than most mere mortals need. We al like new tools but scarcely get good with the present ones before new tools are introduced. Most are only needed by a few.

 

Adobe abolished the Solutions Network. Nice program and very friendly. It gave many pros access to helping Adobe but instead of using the Solutions Network for a really good focus group Adobe abolished it entirely. Lots of bad feelings there. Adobe didn't know what they had. Adobe people have become something similar to Wells Fargo employees; nice, courteous, professional-sounding with not one drop of power or influence hiding behind well-written policy and procedure.

 

So, now, let's all sit back and watch. The big corporate users with their licensing deals will dictate how the divining rod bends.

post #48 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronstark View Post
 

 

The current Adobe subscription system is not really compatible with a large cost-centered corporate model. It ties the company to the software and makes compatibility an issue going forward. Disney, I imagine, would not like any other company in control of their image products...no matter how slight.

 

For smaller ad firms and agencies the cloud might work OK but not for a large corporate model.

 

It sounds as if you are assuming that the application and all the files live in the cloud. This not the case. The applications are downloaded to your computer and you have the choice of storing the content files either on your local network, hard drive, USB drive, CD-Rom, email them, put them on Drop Box, or if you so choose, store them on Adobe's Creative Cloud service.

 

The only aspects of the subscription that are mandatory is that once a month you may see a pop up asking to verify your account and that you pay either annually or monthly for the service. In the case of Disney, I would suspect that the CC version would save them lots of money because you get two licenses instead of one which can be allocated to either Macs or Windows or one of each.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #49 of 68
I won't, and a lot of peers won't touch CC.

Now it becomes a waiting game. Adobe laying siege to customers and customers milling about with CS 6 laying siege to Adobe - who blinks first?

The game changer will be MS and Apple - and if new OS's will support CS 6.

Flash is dead. I don't think shareholders want to kill their golden goose. I think they won't kill CC, but we will see more price drops and new iterations of it.

Meanwhile, we wait for the hacking community to figure it out.
post #50 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Now it becomes a waiting game. Adobe laying siege to customers and customers milling about with CS 6 laying siege to Adobe - who blinks first?

The upgrade pricing offer runs out December 3rd for CS3-CS6 customers so that might persuade some to adopt it - I think they've probably topped 1 million subscribers by now. The Downfall parody summarizes the sequence of events customers will experience (subtitles are NSFW):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Iw9q2X9cU
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

Meanwhile, we wait for the hacking community to figure it out.

Again, how is this different from any other Adobe release or really anything that involves something people don't like? Some people want to see the new Mac Pro fail to sell because it's not the tower they wanted and promotes Thunderbolt over the PCIe slots they assume everyone uses, people convince themselves that Apple Mac sales are down because of what they did to the 17" laptop and Mac Pro, people think that Apple's smartphone sales will collapse soon if they don't release a bigger iPhone. It's standard behaviour that people assume everyone thinks like they do on subjects they feel strongly about e.g I'm so sure I'm right about this, I can't be in the minority. Then come the protests and the threats of boycotting and piracy.

The fact is, if tomorrow Adobe said 'ok, let's have the CC apps available on a perpetual license for $2000', it's not going to change the state of affairs much at all because it's still really expensive. All it means is that it's easier to pirate the software because it's not going to get frequent updates so people cracking it can put out an update once and have it last for a while. With CC, Adobe can issue 50 updates a year if they want and it's not feasible for people to keep patching every update.
post #51 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by hobBIT View Post
And that whole concept of having to continue to pay in order to be able to access my content in future I really don't like.
Stop paying and Photoshop stops working within a month and you can no longer use any of your files.

I don't think you quite understand how it works. Photoshop files ARE backwards compatible so a PSD you create with CC can be opened on a machine running 5.0 with no CC attached to it. As far as InDesign and Illustrator, you can always backwards-save your files when archiving. It just becomes part of your work-flow.


Edited by LosFelizGuy - 9/5/13 at 6:39pm
post #52 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by dysamoria View Post
All these "if you're not making enough to pay for it, you're not a professional/you're not charging enough" are the antipathetic republicans of Adobe's customers. 

No we are not. We just consider it part of running our business. I don't expect to get free gasoline when I drive to a client meeting, or free internet, or free cell service, or free web hosting, etc. Without any of these things, I would not be in business.

post #53 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post


Wow. $2000 whole dollars? Amazing.

That is less than 2% of my billings this year. If each version can increase my productivity by more than that i'll consider the cloud well worth the expense. Not to mention, illustrator, InDesign & typekit, though I realize this article is about photoshop.

Either way, the whiners do not impress me. If you can't make money with CC, get out of the way.

 

Well hoo-f**king-ray for you. Many hobbyists and part-timers use these applications as well, you know. Plus, IT departments HATE this kind of subscription model - upgrading stand-alone software is already a pain in a large IT network and IT always wait for the software to mature before deploying. Having CC throw upgrades every year or so? No. That wont sit well and, judging by this promotion and only something like 1m users its not going very well at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rain View Post

I won't, and a lot of peers won't touch CC.

Now it becomes a waiting game. Adobe laying siege to customers and customers milling about with CS 6 laying siege to Adobe - who blinks first?

The game changer will be MS and Apple - and if new OS's will support CS 6.

Flash is dead. I don't think shareholders want to kill their golden goose. I think they won't kill CC, but we will see more price drops and new iterations of it.

Meanwhile, we wait for the hacking community to figure it out.

 

I believe Photoshop Magazine did a poll and found that 76% of their readers weren't even going to consider CC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LosFelizGuy View Post
 

I don't think you quite understand how it works. Photoshop files ARE backwards compatible so a PSD you create with CC can be opened on a machine running 5.0 with no CC attached to it. As far as InDesign and Illustrator, you can always backwards-save your files when archiving. It just becomes part of your work-flow.

 

And when the next version of CC comes out? Then what?

Saving in an older format can also have troubles - its like saving a DOCX in DOC and hoping everything remains hunky dory.

... at night.

Reply

... at night.

Reply
post #54 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post

judging by this promotion and only something like 1m users its not going very well at all.

The unexpected success of the move was one of the reasons Adobe gave for dropping CS so suddenly:

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1672530/adobe-5-reasons-we-killed-the-creative-suite

This $10/m offer was made because photographers asked Adobe for a tailored bundle:

http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/04/adobes-giving-photogs-a-crazy-deal-on-creative-cloud-tools-10-per-month/

"The company said its Creative Cloud customers had been asking for a special bundle just for photographers."

They are on track to make over $4b revenue this year, same as they did last year (note that they still sell CS6). Their fiscal Q3 ended last month so they'll put out another report soon.

It's not clear how many customers they have overall but their software is priced between roughly $300-2500 and they make $3.3b revenue. If their average selling price is $700, that's 4.7m customers per year of the old suite. So 1m subscribers in a year is actually ok. People who recently bought CS6, which is still on sale aren't going to jump on CC immediately.

Like I say, people who don't like it want to see it fail but the numbers suggest it isn't failing. It has higher reviews than any other product Adobe sells - 80% of the 600-800 reviews for it are 4/5 or higher. As usual, there's a vocal minority expressing discontent and one of the reviews is:

1/5
"Like going back to dialup after high speed...
BillInFlorida Posted:31-July-2013
Extremely slow to do simple functions. Opening and closing Photoshop and Illustrator can literally take several minutes. After this year subscription, I'm going back to pre-Creative Cloud. I'm losing money waiting for these apps to operate properly. It's a shame, the concept was solid but the everyday use is VERY frustrating."

95 people flagged that review as helpful and there's a group around that number upvoting a lot of the negative reviews.

Being able to open and adjust files outside of the subscription is a serious concern and should be addressed with a CC option rather than relying on CS6 because downgrading files isn't ideal if you just need to make small adjustments to previous projects. Images aren't as big of a concern as project files like Indesign documents or After Effects projects. The web software is not an issue as it all comes out in text files that can be edited anywhere. There is always the option to subscribe again to open files but that's not great for people who aren't earning and have already paid for a number of years so I think having pricing benefits for long-time members would be helpful. I don't think subscribing again is as serious an issue as people make out though given the low monthly price. It's not as if suddenly people won't ever be able to find $10-50 a month and have their career come to an abrupt end.
post #55 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmovie View Post
 

God bless all the pirates, code breakers and torrent creators and uploaders.

 

May we forever know "Adobe" to be a sun-dried brick made of mud and straw.

 

So you're saying Adobe products are good enough for you to USE, but not good enough to pay for? If that's the way the revolution is going to unfold, I don't wanna play.

 

Wanna make a statement? Refuse to pay for Adobe products and DON'T USE THEM. That's activism. What you're describing us just stealing.

post #56 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkling View Post

It's a marvelous move by Adobe. As a one-Mac publisher, I'd love to see them extend it into my field. Charge perhaps $19.95 for the apps needed to create documents and books. InDesign and Photoshop would be on my must-have list. Add Muse and Illustrator, and $29.95 might be justifiable.

Adobe needs to keep in mind a problem employees face when they try to convince their boss that they must sign up for CC. The boss is likely to see that long list of apps and say, "Why are we paying for these? We don't need them." Then they get stuck using purchased apps that get older and older.

Selling smaller bundles would get over bureaucratic hurdles like that at many organizations.

 

The problem I would face is the same one I had under the purchase model: the combinations never met my particular needs.

 

Like you, I regularly use Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign. Those were all in the "Design" bundles. Unfortunately there was no bundle other than the Master Collection that included those and the only other Adobe app I really need -- After Effects. By the time I paid for AE separately the total cost made the Master Collection comparatively attractive anyway.

 

And for whatever it's worth, I also feel like $50/mo. is more than I want to keep paying so I keep looking for ways I can get away with cancelling. At $30/mo. I felt good about it and didn't give it a second thought.

post #57 of 68

I agree with Tony1, it's like a crack dealer's sample.

 

As for me, Adobe will have to take that $10 from my cold, dead hands.

 

(And I'll bet they'll be gone first...)

post #58 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenoz View Post

I agree with Tony1, it's like a crack dealer's sample.

Adobe could do with sending clearer messages about the terms of the offer. There's a thread here asking about guarantees over future price increases:

http://forums.adobe.com/message/4932737

The Adobe guy responded that he didn't know. It's a valid concern that people can work for 10 years on projects and then Adobe ups the monthly price dramatically. Inflation could push it up, which over 10 years will be around 40% so in 10 years time, it could easily be priced at $70/m but that's not them raising the price for profiteering. It's a similar deal with the old Mac towers. They seem more expensive now but a G4 Cube at $1799 in 2001 would cost $2374 today, which isn't far off the $2499 Mac Pro.

They may decide not to raise the price at all, in which case it'll be cheaper in 10 years than it is now. They could have raised the price between standalone versions too but there is a stronger dependency with the subscription model so having terms that state explicitly that the subscription fee won't be raised above inflation from the time of signup would give people more certainty as to the costs to expect to pay in their working career.

The other nice thing with software working outside of a license is being able to open and edit files if anything bad happens to the company or products. For example, even though Final Cut Pro and Shake are long EOL'd, they can be used to open, modify and export projects. If Adobe had a limited mode (e.g time-limited and/or function-limited) with CC apps that allowed you to do that, this would put some people at ease.

They seem to suggest that CS6 will always be the backup there:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/53531

If people decide to stop paying for whatever reason, they'd save projects for CS6. I think a limited-mode CC would work better than that (and can be in addition to it) as it won't downgrade the quality of the projects.

The rent-to-own model would let them drop CS6 entirely but I'm not sure how sustainable that would be in the long term or how people stop and then start paying again for upgrades because people would be using the software and then be able to skip paying for lots of updates that others were paying for. The monthly pricing is lower than most of the retail prices of the suites and that pricing relies on people always paying or it would be higher.

It's a business model that is already in use in various places but not something everyone is used to with productive software, much like digital game distribution was new and people were (still are) worried about what happens to game libraries if Valve or anyone else went bankrupt as the DRM doesn't validate and they can't access the software:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/18mzcn/i_asked_steam_support_what_happens_to_my_games_if/?sort=old

The answers are typically not clear because I think the companies offering these services don't really know what the consequences would be. Computers have come from pretty much nothing to here in just 30 years. People wonder what happens with software in 20-50 years. Software as a product will always be able to run somehow and subscribed software won't unless it's cracked but will it be a problem? Is it likely that someone will try to open a project in even 10 years after not paying for the software and not have an alternative workflow by then? In some cases perhaps a movie or document needs to be redone through the same process to get the same overall output but with a few modifications that might take a lot of work to redo from scratch in another workflow. I doubt it would be a frequent problem but like I say a limited-offline-mode would at least give some assurance that it won't reach a dead-end.
post #59 of 68
Almost 40,000 folks have signed.They don%u2019t like Adobe Creative Cloud licensing.Show @Adobe how you feel. https://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

Another more fiscal way to show @Adobe you dont like the CC licensing scheme.http://adobe2014.tumblr.com #adobe2014
post #60 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasvideo View Post

Almost 40,000 folks have signed.They don%u2019t like Adobe Creative Cloud licensing.Show @Adobe how you feel. https://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

Another more fiscal way to show @Adobe you dont like the CC licensing scheme.http://adobe2014.tumblr.com #adobe2014

 

Good luck with that buddy.

post #61 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasvideo View Post

Almost 40,000 folks have signed.They don%u2019t like Adobe Creative Cloud licensing.Show @Adobe how you feel. https://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

Another more fiscal way to show @Adobe you dont like the CC licensing scheme.http://adobe2014.tumblr.com #adobe2014

 

You know you're on a web forum, not Twitter, right? The pound signs and at symbols serve only to uselessly clutter your text here.

post #62 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by lasvideo View Post

Almost 40,000 folks have signed.They don%u2019t like Adobe Creative Cloud licensing.Show @Adobe how you feel. https://www.change.org/petitions/adobe-systems-incorporated-eliminate-the-mandatory-creative-cloud-subscription-model

Another more fiscal way to show @Adobe you dont like the CC licensing scheme.http://adobe2014.tumblr.com #adobe2014

You know you're on a web forum, not Twitter, right? The pound signs and at symbols serve only to uselessly clutter your text here.

Probably just force of habit:

https://twitter.com/lasvideo

Over 13,000 tweets in < 3 years. This is the same guy that switched from the Mac because of FCPX:

http://library.creativecow.net/daigon_tom/From-PC-to-Mac-and-back-again/1

He wasn't happy with the Mac Pro, went around a few suppliers and finally blew $11k on an HP Z820 with the intention of running all Adobe products instead of Apple. Since the Creative Cloud move, Adobe's become the new thing to complain about:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/378/1

The guy from Adobe said: "You can do what you want, but I think it's more effective to communicate directly with the people you want. No noise, just direct communication".

In the end, it's all very well pointing out the problems but Adobe has to come up with a solution that works for both them and their customers; that's the nature of business. The highly priced perpetual license cut out the possibility of legitimate access to the software for people on fixed incomes. Rental models leave people without usable software after paying lots of money and stopping paying. Rent-to-own seems like the best of both but if it's not done right, it would mean that people can just stop paying after say 5 years and then how do they pay for those 5 years of updates? They can't just start paying the subscription again because other people have been paying for 5 years. Although new users do get to just start subscribing, they haven't been using the software for the previous 5 years.

The costs of the subscription can lower when everyone is paying all the time, same way insurance works. It has the potential for abuse because there's a degree of vendor lock-in with software. Adobe could have terms that put people more at ease when it comes to potential price increases over long periods of time but I think people get carried away with the potential problems. If prices were raised to crazy levels or even levels that were deemed uncomfortably expensive, the entire creative industry isn't going to just take it. It would transition just like it did with Quark. There's nothing else quite like the CS/CC Suites but there are alternatives for every app. For periods where you might run out of money, they could perhaps have a credit system so for every year you pay a subscription, you get 1-3 months of usage credits. If you have a rough patch, you can run the software from the usage credits to become financially stable again.

Adobe has no reason at all to persuade people to leave their eco-system. Once they have enough people on board, they have the freedom to lower prices. Shareholders care more about growth than profits as Amazon demonstrates and raising subscription prices would negatively impact growth.

- if they bring back a method to allow people to stop paying, subscription costs would have to increase because the current prices have to be based around the assumption that everyone is paying all the time
- if subscription costs go up, it persuades people to stop subscribing as soon as they can, which further increases the prices
- people who pay for the software once and don't upgrade for 5-10 years will be worse off but it's spread out over a long period of time and the price difference only starts to become noticeable after 4 years of not upgrading

If Adobe gets to a point where they have 15 million subscribers, which isn't a lot of people (about 1/3 of Netflix) paying $20/m, they'll make more revenue than they do now and it'll sustain the company forever. Isn't the possibility of a $20/m Suite of apps worth aiming for? Although it doesn't seem right that one company gets to have a privileged position, this is the same Adobe that's been there right from the start of creative computing and driven a lot of the industry to where it is now. Over time, with sustainable revenue, they can make acquisitions like Maxon, The Foundry, maybe even Autodesk and bring those suites into the same bundle. That could create a monopoly on creative software but would it be worse than a competitive model where monolithic software inevitably plateaus and companies like Avid end up close to bankruptcy leaving the whole industry in doubt as to what comes after it?

When companies are forced to downsize, the people who built the software have little choice but to split apart and the talent gets diluted elsewhere. This happened with Apple when they brought in the team from Nothing Real. Shake was used by Weta on Lord of the Rings and you can see the Apple logo in the credits. This software was eventually broken down and some parts used to create Motion and the team that left Apple sells equivalent software through the Foundry for $4-8k. Apple had Shake down to under $500. Without sustainable revenue, a large creative development team is a resource drain and these loss-making products end up dying out or becoming far too expensive with a limited audience. This isn't good for the industry as a whole.

People complain all the time about how big companies are abandoning high-end products - Avid ditched their high-end DS line recently, spot any tweets that stand out here:

http://provideocoalition.com/ssimmons/story/it-looks-like-avid-is-finally-going-lay-ds-to-rest

This is what happens when companies have to maintain large creative development teams constantly to work on and support very expensive software that has a small customer base. Eventually, people migrate down to cheaper software and the powerful software is killed off. Adobe's strategy by contrast lets everyone get high-end software while still maintaining revenues. As I say, with some good acquisitions, this business model could make the most powerful creative software there is, accessible to everyone, even students. Having to keep paying is a downside but an inevitable one to keep prices down.

If they communicated terms that assured people for the long term, that would help. Microsoft failed to do this with their XBox strategy. The strategy was ok in that it included protections for game developers to improve their revenues and allow lower game costs for everyone. This problem of game resale is damaging the whole games industry and people don't see it because they aren't aware of the big companies going under. The problem was Microsoft didn't communicate or demonstrate the benefits so everyone focused on the fact that people weren't getting games as products any more but as licenses and would therefore be more expensive with less freedom.

People like to feel like they own things but software has a downside in that you own a copy of something that can't degrade. Things that degrade eventually push you to renew them. That's why hardware products aren't built to last, you can't build software like that but the team that made it still needs to be supported to work on new things.
post #63 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post

Well hoo-f**king-ray for you. Many hobbyists and part-timers use these applications as well, you know. Plus, IT departments HATE this kind of subscription model - upgrading stand-alone software is already a pain in a large IT network and IT always wait for the software to mature before deploying. Having CC throw upgrades every year or so? No. That wont sit well and, judging by this promotion and only something like 1m users its not going very well at all.

I believe Photoshop Magazine did a poll and found that 76% of their readers weren't even going to consider CC.

And when the next version of CC comes out? Then what?
Saving in an older format can also have troubles - its like saving a DOCX in DOC and hoping everything remains hunky dory.

I guess I don't really care about hobbyists or IT departments.

However, if you don't want to run CC right now, you can install CS6 and leave CC alone until you consider it ready for prime time.

What I do like is having the full suite at my disposal, with 100GB of synce space for my current work & typekit.

Adobe is making a professional product for professional creatives. Whether hobbyists & IT approve is of no concern to me and I'm happy with the direction they are going.

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #64 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post
 

 

For me, that's already the case.  I use Aperture for 99% of my image cataloging, image editing, and image printing.

 

Photoshop gets used once in a blue moon, which is exactly why it's easy for me to tell Adobe to go screw themselves.  This recent special sale only proves that Adobe is realizing it screwed up.  Adobe won't get a another chance from me.

 

Mark

I use Pixelmator and Aperture together, you can send files between the two. Pixelmator for layers and effects, Aperture for photo retouching (the skin smoothing tool is a favorite of my clients and works much better than whatever is the Photoshop equivalent) Aperture can also export in CMYK, that Pixelmator doesn't. For under $100 I have all of my Photoshop needs covered. And instead of Flash and Fireworks I use Hype. So no more Adobe Photoshop drugs for me, even at the "discounted" $10 a month. I am done upgrading InDesign too. That used to be my favorite program to design in, but they added so much cross over crap from other CS suite applications it is less and less a favorite. I have been using Pages lately to layout books, it is quite nice and easy to make into an epub version.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by artvader View Post

Why is Adobe keen on making simple things more complicated?

Do clients really care if a designer is using the latest version of Adobe Suites? If one is slave to the tool they're using in order to create fantastic work, then I'm afraid something is lacking in one's skill as a designer.

It only matters if you need to collaborate with other designers. And for that so far we can make legacy versions. Adobe only knows one mode, complicated. It isn't only the price, but the more bloated, unnecessary stuff, the new learning curve. I do web and graphic design, it is a full time job just to keep up with the learning curve for my software these days! Enough already.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Booth View Post

 

Aperture is incredibly powerful.  So many features.  <snip>

I'll happily give Apple another $79 for the next version of Aperture!  No brainer!

 

Mark

Me too, any day. Best software I have bought in awhile (well, besides Pixelmator and Hype)

 

Quote:
All these "if you're not making enough to pay for it, you're not a professional/you're not charging enough" are the antipathetic republicans of Adobe's customers. You don't have any say in what makes a person's expenses, sales, or work legitimate.

I don't know if I would go that far, (close maybe) But not everyone lives in an area that can get top market dollar from their clients. I have worked freelance for almost 30 years and before computers. My clients are small businesses, if I didn't charge something in line with what they can pay they won't be able to use my services. If Apple can charge what it does for software, then Adobe can dial it down, their stuff is ten times the price of Apple. They are just greedy and their software gets worse and worse. And their answer isn't for them to make their software a reasonable price, no it is forced upon me to squeeze more money from my clients. Sort of a stupid game plan, but they assume they own the market. Microsoft did that too.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post
Adobe is making a professional product for professional creatives. Whether hobbyists & IT approve is of no concern to me and I'm happy with the direction they are going.

Well, your opinion is of no concern to me either, I can design with a pad and paper, I did everything before Adobe came into creation, even color separation (had to farm that out, but it was available none the less) I am looking forward to receiving my Wacom pressure sensitive stylus for my iPad. They have great software to go with it too, if one is truly creative, a stick and a bottle of ink is sufficient, anything else is just additions to the toolbox.


Edited by ggbrigette - 9/10/13 at 12:02am
post #65 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post

I don't really care about hobbyists or IT departments. [...] Whether hobbyists & IT approve is of no concern to me and I'm happy with the direction they are going.

 

Well that's the end of the discussion. polymnia is satisfied so everyone drop it now.

 

Those of you who use Adobe products in corporate settings who depend on IT department approval can just suck it up and quit your damn whining. Your magazines, movies and web products are a trivial matter compared to polymnia's happiness.

post #66 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by ggbrigette View Post
 

the skin smoothing tool is a favorite of my clients and works much better than whatever is the Photoshop equivalent

 

You don't even know how that's done in Photoshop, yet you somehow know that Pixelmator does it better? Cool trick.

 

Did I say "cool trick?" Sorry, I meant "silly posturing."

post #67 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Well that's the end of the discussion. polymnia is satisfied so everyone drop it now.

Those of you who use Adobe products in corporate settings who depend on IT department approval can just suck it up and quit your damn whining. Your magazines, movies and web products are a trivial matter compared to polymnia's happiness.

If you are working in a creative environment your IT dept is NOT going to say you cannot have Adobe software. At least no creative environment I've ever worked in.

Anyone making magazines, movies or web products in a professional, collaborative environment is using Adobe. So you can whine all you want, but you will continue using it.

I chose to accentuate the positive, and from where I sit there is a lot of positive. My billings are quite ample and the $50/month is a drop in the bucket. I find the new software quite compelling. I'm happy to support adobe.

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #68 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
 

 

You don't even know how that's done in Photoshop, yet you somehow know that Pixelmator does it better? Cool trick.

 

Did I say "cool trick?" Sorry, I meant "silly posturing."

 

You misread my post. Pixelmator doesn't have a skin smoothing tool, Aperture does. Photoshop has a healing brush, I have tried may of those tools in Photoshop, but mostly used the cloning tool so I don't remember what each brush is called, I have worked in Photoshop since about '92. But Aperture's skin smoothing brush is perfect for touch ups and does a better job than the Photoshop healing/touch-up brushes I have used.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Adobe cuts Photoshop CC to $10 a month for Creative Suite users, throws in Lightroom for free